list_notifications

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool lists audit logs (read-only) and mentions pagination/filtering. It does not describe rate limits, required permissions, or whether it's destructive, but the context implies it is safe. Additional detail on side effects would improve transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is two sentences, highly concise and front-loaded. First sentence states purpose, second adds filtering/pagination details. No superfluous text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given low complexity and no output schema, the description covers essential aspects: action (list), resource (notification audit log), key features (paginated, filterable by event type or timestamp). It hints at return structure (delivered/failed/skipped). Slightly lacking in explicit output format, but adequate for selection.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value by paraphrasing filtering capabilities ('filter by event type or since timestamp') but does not provide new meaning beyond schema descriptions for parameters like 'after' (cursor).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states the tool lists the operator's notification audit log, specifying what is listed (delivered, failed, skipped attempts) and mentioning pagination and filtering. This distinguishes it from related tools like get_notification_preferences (settings) and test_notification (sending).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for viewing audit log with filtering and pagination. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, it provides clear context for typical use cases. No contradictory guidance given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.